"Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda"

Just came across this Google Doc (20+ pp.) available to anyone who is interested.

Basically, it’s a guide for liberals on how to use Tea Party tactics to take Congress back.

Something about that doesn’t make sense to me. For example, if memory serves, the Tea Party became a force after the Republicans regained the majority in the House, not when they were in a minority party. Once they were a significant fraction of the majority party, they could exercise their influence by an extremely rigid adherence to their (tea) party line.

The key to Tea Party influence and Republican control of the House is how they got elected, at least as much as to what they did once they were elected. And they got elected through gerrymandered districts engineered by the Republican party after the 2010 census. If the Democrats wish to express their actual majority in the country by winning House seats, they are going to have to deal with those gerrymandered safe Republican seats. They might do this in the courts, or they might do it by wresting control of state-level legislatures and re-drawing the districts in 2020. Or both. In whatever path they might choose, it will be a long slog.

I’m not going to take a Tea Party approach to anything. And about this mandate… People get way too caught up in that term. Did he have the popular vote? Not by a longshot. But is he/his directors of the same party as the Congressional majority? Sure are. They can, and will do what they want, and that’s as good as a mandate. What Democrats can do about it is fucking vote next time.

I recommend people read the document before criticizing the concept. It’s a quick read, and it’s more like a “how to” for effective popular activism in general. Remember, legislative majorities don’t automatically mean popular support for the majority agenda, and legislators do respond to loud and insistent constituencies.

Ohhhhhh…kay then.

In 2008 Obama recieved 10 million more votes than Clinton got this time. Those 10 million votes did not go to Trump, instead. They stayed home.

What are the chances that someone who takes the time to try and influence their Congressperson or Senator(s) per this guide will keep choosing to not vote?

If you want people to do anything, you’ve got to show them how to get something for their effort. This guide shows them simple ways to voice their opinion to their elected representatives. That may only provide an illusion of participation to them, but that by itself is most likely enough to get a lot of people to perform the more major task of voting.

More civic involvement cannot fail to produce more voting. It can’t have a negative or zero effect.

ETA: This is the first post-election publication I’ve seen that gives real, actionable and effective advice for people going forward. I’d hate to see it nitpicked to death.

I agree, and I hope it helps. But I really am disillusioned that Democrats need to be convinced to get out of the fucking house and vote.

Amen, bro or sis.

I did see a lot of disillusionment prior to the election from ostensible Democratic voters who weren’t happy with their “flawed” candidates. No amount of actual analysis could get some of these people to see any real difference between Hillary Clinton and “the other Wall Street shills.” (I’m seeing the same criticisms thrown at viable future candidates like Corey Booker, even from folks who eventually came around to HRC. Their learning curve doesn’t even seem to curve.)

I’m hoping actual contact with legislators with some actual visible influence might teach some of these purists that they should vote for the inevitably “flawed” human beings who actually run for office as Democrats.

What a great idea. :rolleyes:

Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008, Clinton got 65.8 million in 2016 (so far).

If that’s true, then it’s certainly an update of what I last heard.

It would seem to counter the “you didn’t vote” nonsense, doesn’t it. That’s a lot of people ( 65.8 million) who “not voted”.

Yeah, it obviously would. Thanks.

This is also well worth reading, about North Carolina’s Moral Mondays movement and the reasons why it worked.

Great links. Thanks.

This is the 15th thread you’ve started with the name “Trump” in the title in the last four months, not counting five other threads you started where you talk about him but didn’t mention his name in the title.

Yeah, I know. I’m aware of the “Don’t like it? Don’t read it.” guideline. Just seems like there’s a new one every week or so from ya, though. : p Is this a “Oh, it’s Tuesday, I must start my regular thread about Donald Trump” sort of thing?

I can’t, for the life of me, imagine why it matters to you. But if it gives your life meaning to follow me around and count stuff, by all means. It gives **my **life meaning to know that I’m keeping you from bothering other posters. So please continue, with my blessing. :slight_smile:

It looks like he was openly defying the “will of the people” and they hit back.

But now, the Repubs in North Carolina are doing all they can to strip all power from the incoming administration.
They are effectively staging a coup in NC.

No one is forcing you to read all or them.